Yeah, but is it Brady's fault they lost? Brady certainly wasn't playing defense when the Giants marched down the field for the game winning drive.

Right, I remember. It's all Brady when they win, and all someone else when they lose. Got it.

Manning is a great QB. I consider him in the same tier as Brady. Should we diminish Manning's accomplishments because he had Harrison?

Seriously, Harrison is a great WR no doubt, but Moss in his prime when he actually tried had no peer.

I would honestly contend if Manning had thrown to Moss, he might have hit 60 TDs in a season, with Moss getting maybe 30 of them.

Brady's the QB, right or wrong he gets credit when they win and blame when they lose. Like all QBs.

To diminish his 3 superbowl wins by saying, "well, yeah but he lost two after that," is ridiculous. Just getting to the superbowl is a huge accomplishment.

Also, like all QBs, he can't really be great without great players around him. Maybe Phil Rivers was the best Qb in the NFL last year but because he had a high school o-line and my buddy's wife as his number one receiver, he put up ****** numbers and lost a ton of games.

So, I'll give you this, when I say Brady is great, I mean he is great within the context of the talent and the system he works with and that he is not without flaws. But the same caveat applies to Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc.

Fair enough, but I'm not the one arguing someone is great or not based on whether they won or lost the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter).

My point is when you use TEAM success as a measure of greatness for one player, you are going to over or under rate that player based on the FACT that other people contribute to the team's success (or lack thereof).

Again, if Brady had played for the Cleveland Browns and never went to a Super Bowl but somehow produced the exact same stats otherwise, how much would your opinion of him be different?

TEAM success is part of the reason Brady is great. HIS STATS AND AWARDS ARE THE OTHER PART!

Get it though your thick skull.

Your second point about Brady and the Browns, the same could and would be said about Manning and any other great QB that ever played the game. It doesn't just apply to Brady.

Posted by bistiza on 2/22/2013 3:19:00 PM (view original):Seriously, you guys, I'll just agree to disagree.

I'm never going to think much of Brady because I don't see the physical tools in him I do in other QBs I think are better.

So while I think you all over rate Brady for team success, in all fairness I probably under rate him because he doesn't show the physical skills I personally believe make a great QB.

So if you can agree to that, then the debate is over. (I think that's quite a concession on my part, and it's as far as I'll go.)

I'd argue you don't see the physical tools he has, and think that the team has carried him to his stats and wins, because you have a hatred for Brady and the Pats, based on some luck and possible cheating that has taken place. It's a bias you have.

I mentioned to you once that if you took yourself out of the situation, and saw someone who absolutely hated a QB, and he rates him much lower than the vast majority of people in terms of skills, you would probably assume that there was a lot of bias at play there. You never acknowledged that point.

I'd argue you don't see the physical tools he has, and think that the team has carried him to his stats and wins, because you have a hatred for Brady and the Pats, based on some luck and possible cheating that has taken place. It's a bias you have.

No.

I failed to see the physical tools long before I ever had that bias, and it's because they don't exist.

Brady doesn't have a rifle for an arm. He isn't as accurate as his numbers make him appear (the system creates that). He isn't incredibly fast or athletic. Those are FACTS.

Taint,

If you're going to concede Brady's made mistakes, then make sure you mention them when discussing him. Don't conveniently call him great and refuse to address it. That's my point.